Saturday, April 26, 2014

I've been wanting to do a post about why I don't believe that the "pro-gun" position in the US really isn't pro-gun. It isn't "pro-gun" to encourage, or condone, irresponsible behaviour which reflects badly on gun owners. Meleanie Hain was one of these people: yet you adored her.

But, that point is lost on gunloons since they are not the responsible gun owner. I'll admit that I still do posts to irritate you lot and let you know that not only do I not find your arguments persuasive: I'm still around and speaking out.

Which more people need to do after this case where a man in Georgia openly intimidated people:

Friday, April 25, 2014

I often think of Ambrose Bierce's definition of Patriotism from the Devil's Dictionary when ever I see someone who "wraps himself in the flag":

“Patriotism, n. Combustible rubbish ready to the
torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name. In Dr. Johnson's
famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a
scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior
lexicographer I beg to submit it is the first.”

There are a few reasons I would mention this, but this comes from the NRA's using the song at their national convention not realising the actual significance of the song.

It is one of the most misinterpreted songs ever. Most people think
it is a patriotic song about American pride, when it actually cast a
shameful eye on how America treated its Vietnam veterans. Springsteen
considers it one of his best songs, but it bothers him that it is so
widely misinterpreted. With the rollicking rhythm, enthusiastic chorus,
and patriotic album cover, it is easy to think this has more to do with
American pride than Vietnam shame.

Springsteen
talked about this in a 2005 interview with National Public Radio. Said
Bruce: "This was when the Republicans first mastered the art of
co-opting anything and everything that seemed fundamentally American,
and if you were on the other side, you were somehow unpatriotic. I make
American music, and I write about the place I live and who I am in my
lifetime. Those are the things I'm going to struggle for and fight for."Speaking
of how the song was misinterpreted, he added: "In my songs, the
spiritual part, the hope part is in the choruses. The blues, and your
daily realities are in the details of the verses. The spiritual comes
out in the choruses, which I got from Gospel music and the church."

Of course, if one listens the words, one finds that this is hardly the patriotic standard the right would like to present it as being. Once again, I wonder if the irony is lost on those who would like to portray this as being "patriotic" while they talk about acts of insurrection which are clearly unconstitutional and illegal.

The thing is that the Right sees the gun control issue as a means to divert workers from voting according to their economic interests and that of their families. The Right sees it as a particularly clever way to prevent workers from following the candidate endorsements of their union, which are made based on economic interests of the members. Neal Knox, a former head of the National Rife Association (NRA), said as much:

"[The gun issue] is the one thing that will spin the blue-collar union member away from his union."

The NRA conducted a massive get-out-the-vote effort on behalf of George W. Bush. Chuck Cunningham, a former director of voter education for the Christian Coalition, led that effort for the NRA. Before working for the Christian Coalition, Cunningham was executive director of the anti-union New England Citizens for Right-to-Work.

Charlton Heston, former president of the NRA, supported the National Right-to-Work Committee in 1994 when it lobbied Congress to defeat S.55 / H.R.5 Anti-Strikebreaker Bill. This would have prohibited employers from permanently replacing striking workers (an act which is illegal in other industrialized countries). Heston appealed to union members to "put freedom first" and support NRA-endorsed candidates, and yet the right to strike is a most basic and essential freedom. Heston personally appealed to members of Congress to defeat pro-worker legislation that would prohibit strikebreakers and produced a video on behalf of the National Right-to-Work Committee, which called him their "world famous ally."In 1996, Charlton Heston championed the most serious threat to the very existence of labor unions. He assisted the National Right-to-Work Committee in a $260,000 ad campaign to lobby Congress to pass a National Right-to-Work Bill which had been introduced. Right-to-Work legislation would prohibit unions from negotiating any union security clause in their contracts. Union membership would be totally voluntary, though all workers must receive the wages and benefits negotiated in the union contract and they must be legally represented in any grievances. It has nothing to do with a right to work, but is part of a larger corporate strategy to financially weaken and eventually eliminate unions. Now deceased, Heston was a very effective spokesman for the NRA in distracting workers from the Right’s real agenda.

Of course, one thing that propaganda does is short-circuit the reason. Take things out of context and use them to stir up people who cannot think for themselves all the while calling those who do examine and question "sheeple".

Remove the right to keep an bear arms from the stated purpose of a well-regulated militia (and the actual constitutional framework that fits into) and something which makes sense suddenly becomes a black and white issue. Those who are opposed to the fictional concept of gun rights are somehow "unAmerican" and against the Constitution, while those who believe in it and would wage war against the United States despite what Article III, Section iii says are "patriots". What could be more nonsensical?

But, what really sums this up is what Critic Greil Marcus
wrote about the Song "Born in the USA": "Clearly the key to the enormous explosion of Bruce's popularity
is the misunderstanding… He is a tribute to the fact that people hear
what they want to hear."

Tell 'em what they want to hear and fuck the truth.

BTW, thanks to the Wisconsin AFL-CIO and their book "The Right Wing" for the bit about the NRA and workers' issues.

Let's try to keep the discussion on BundyFest and ACTUAL threats of violence--not the ones you have in your twisted minds.

That said, I should probably give an explanation to the morons who cannot grasp the difference between seeing the irony of Meleanie Hain being killed by something that this (mistakenly) believed would protect her. Or is that despite the presence of something which she believed would protect her despite the evidence to the contrary?

On the other hand, If she wanted (and the rest of you want) to be fact adverse and you heads start hurting the more evidence is piled against your position--it ain't my problem. It also ain't my problem that she ended up proving "them anti-gun" types correct.

But, you lot tend to be notoriously fact adverse and believe that ignorance is bliss.

Civilian
control of the military is so ingrained in America that we hardly give
it a second thought. Most Americans don't realize how special this
relationship is and how it has contributed to the country.
The
framers of the U.S. Constitution worked to ensure the military would be
under civilian control. They did not want to emulate the European
experience. The colonies had just fought a war for freedom from Britain.
The king controlled the British military, and the framers had no
interest in duplicating that system.
When they wrote the
Constitution they separated the responsibilities for the military,
placing the responsibilities firmly in civilian hands.
Article I,
Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power
"to raise and support Armies …" and "to provide and maintain a Navy."
In addition, Congress must provide for the state militias when they are
called to federal service.
Article II, Section 2 states, "The
President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States, and of the Militia of the several States when called into
the actual Service of the United States."
Congress has the power to declare war and to make the rules for governing the military.
So
the framers spread responsibilities for the military around. The
president and Congress had to work together to use the military.
<snip>

With
the growth of political parties, an officer's political allegiance
became important. President John Adams appointed Federalist officers to
the military. As Jefferson's private secretary, Army Capt. Meriwether
Lewis vetted the "Republican" (later Democratic) credentials of his
fellow Army officers.
This reinforced the belief in the U.S.
military that officers should not participate in politics. They should
follow the orders of the president and the wishes of the Congress no
matter who was in power.

<snip>

Military
members swear "to support and defend the Constitution of the United
States." One of the more successful aspects of that document is civilian
control of the military.

A bill that would have made it a crime to expose a gun to a child in Louisiana was soundly defeated 8-4 in a House committee vote Wednesday.

The legislation would have made it illegal to intentionally expose children under age ten to a firearm that was not locked in a container or secured by a locking device.

Introduced earlier this month, HB 1189 was crushed during hearing of the House Administration of Criminal Justice Committee with bipartisan opposition.

“I’m not asking you to give your gun up … I’m only asking you to protect those children,” said Rep. Barbara Norton, (D-Shreveport), the bill’s sponsor to the committee. “I hope one day in the state of Louisiana that we put children first. I am hoping and praying.”

A 2-year-old boy was critically injured Wednesday in what police described as an accidental shooting on the city’s south side. A man related to the boy also suffered a gunshot wound in the 7 p.m. incident at the Oak Park Village Apartments on Long Boulevard, police said.

A murder suspect in a Potter County shooting was arrested Sunday in Mount Joy, after turning himself into state police.

Greg A. Riehl, 27, of Coudersport, was charged with murder and reckless endangerment in the shooting of Anthony J. Palmieri, 37, early Sunday morning.

Riehl allegedly shot Palmieri after finding him in bed with his girlfriend, according to a story in the Potter Leader-Enterprise.

After the shooting, Riehl called his father early Sunday morning, at 5:15 a.m., and told him he wanted to meet for breakfast, the Leader-Enterprise reported.

Father and son ate breakfast and Riehl told his father he had something to tell him.

Greg Riehl told his dad that he had been drinking at a friend's house and thinks he passed out.

When he came to, no one was around. He went into his friend's house and found the friend, Palmieri, in bed with his girlfriend. Riehl told his dad he got angry and shot his friend, the Leader-Enterprise reported.

"Riehl told his father he didn't flee Potter County but that he wanted to see his dad before he turned himself in, so he drove to Lancaster County," the news organization reported.

Interstate firearms trafficking thrives because each state regulates gun sales differently, and there is no federal limitation on the number of guns that an individual may purchase at any one time. California, Maryland, Washington, D.C., and New Jersey have laws limiting consumers to one gun per month; Texas does not. In the 2011 operation in Arizona, one defendant bought six AK-47s from one gun store, and within the space of two weeks, he bought 17 from another store. Less than a month later, he bought 20 from the same store. Three months later, he went back and bought 10 more. Tracking the sales of guns so straw buyers can be detected is impossible in the present political environment. “The National Rifle Association has so successfully opposed a comprehensive electronic database of gun sales that the A.T.F.’s congressional appropriation explicitly prohibits establishing one,” Katherine Eban wrote in Fortune in 2012.

Gun incidents rose 40 percent in Minneapolis last year, the first significant jump in years following a long-term downward trend in gun-related cases.

The gun incidents in the city report being released Wednesday include people being shot or shot at, reports of gunshot wounds or a gun used in a crime.

Two top law enforcement officials said it’s too soon to say whether the report’s findings signaled the beginning of something new in crime, and pointed instead to the long-term decline.

“Minneapolis is on the right track,” said Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek, who said the city should stick with its strategies for fighting gun crime. Those things include “going after violent offenders, removing illegal guns, working on the gangs and narcotics problems, and most importantly they leverage their partnerships with other agencies,” he said.

Other highlights in the report, called Results Minneapolis, include a rise in cellphone thefts, a rise in police response times and a drop in internal affairs complaints from 1,427 in 2012 to 934 in 2013. The report also said the department, despite being led by a woman for the first time, had a smaller percentage of female officers last year (15 percent) than it did 10 years previously (16.4 percent).

The sharp rise in gun incidents comes at a time when it’s still far too easy for young people to find illegal guns on the street, Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman said.

“We’re like the kid with a finger in the dike against this flood of guns,” he said. His office built a website, www.changethestoryhennepin.com, that addresses youth and gun violence. It includes the statistic that 15,576 children and teenagers were injured by firearms nationwide in 2010, a rate of one injury every 30 minutes.

A person who breaks into another's home is violating the rights of the owner. But the State of New Jersey doesn't have the right to decide who gets to travel within its borders. I liken this to the situation in Mississippi during segregation. It was wrong to tell some people not to drink from certain water fountains or not to occupy certain seats on a bus. It's wrong to bar good citizens from having their firearms in their possession.

Better thinking, please.

First, equating racial segregation to gunloonery is not a hill one wants to die on. According to Greggy:

the photo here .....is the equivalent of not being able to fondle gusn across state lines.

Nice.

Second, let's debunk the myth of "good citizens" once again and sagely.
It's important to understand what Greggy means by "good citizen" is someone who's not a felon..sometimes. IOW, a "good citizen" can be someone who has a lengthy criminal record and/or someone with major substance abuse/mental health/alcohol issues.

Third, it's rather offensive when gunloons, such as Greggy, attempt to link gunloonery to the civil rights movement. Would Martin Luther King, Jr or Medgar Evers be alive today had they been armed to the teeth? How about Malcolm X? The plain fact is gunloonery has been a major factor in trying to stem the advancement of black civil rights

Thursday, April 24, 2014

It's rather ironic that some old cracker in Nevada, with 14 kids and who has been living off Government subsidies his entire life and refuses to pay fees he's racked up--can expound about how "the Negro" was much better under slavery.

Why don't you and the other pro-gun commenters use the same logic you use on the unarmed drunk person who tries to enter the wrong house and gets killed for his trouble? About him you say if he didn't want to get dead he shouldn't break into peoples' homes. But for this poor persecuted gun owner we don't hear anyone saying if he didn't want to go to jail in NJ he shouldn't have "forgotten" his gun was in the car.

You see how you guys run. A gun owner shoots an unarmed person and you blame the person, like this one and this one. When an Alzheimer's patient is stumbling around and gets killed, it's his fault, drunk teens mistaking your house for theirs, it's their fault. But when a gun owner "forgets" his gun on a trip to Atlantic City and you blame the laws of NJ. You refuse to hold fellow gun owners responsible for their actions. That's bias and that's dishonesty.

Franklin County Sheriff’s Office officials said Tuesday that the death of the 7-year-old boy in Burnt Chimney is being treated as an accidental shooting. The investigation, according to Capt. Mark Torbert, is focused on determining how the boys got their hands on the weapons.

Torbert said the brothers had gone to visit a neighbor. As the investigation stands, it appears the boys obtained guns, and both were handling them inside the neighbor’s home when the 12-year-old fired a .45-caliber handgun. The bullet struck the 7-year-old, and the neighbor, the only adult in the house, called 911.

Deputies arrived at 11:47 a.m., the sheriff’s office has said, and found the boy dead. Lt. Phillip Young said the boy was killed instantly.

No charges have been filed in the incident as of yet, and a search warrant related to the shooting is sealed, but Torbert said investigators have zeroed in on the “circumstances leading up to the children having access to firearms.”

The shooting, Torbert said, is a wake-up call to anyone storing guns near children.

“We need to begin the conversation in our community about gun safety,” he said. “There’s nothing wrong with guns. Adults just need to ensure that children don’t have access to firearms.”

At the most basic level, he said, gun locks should be obtained for any weapon. They are readily available, and several groups — including the sheriff’s office — will supply them for free.

Other precautions are also advisable, Torbert said, like storing guns in a location children cannot reach.

And at an appropriate age, he said, parents should talk to children about gun safety and what to do if they encounter a gun or are handling one.

A 4-year-old girl was killed Monday night in what police are describing as an accidental shooting.

Authorities are unsure if the girl fired the gun or if someone else shot her. However, he said, the shooting appears to be accidental. The girl was in the apartment where she lived with her parents and two younger siblings. No one else was harmed in the shooting.

Halifax said police found more than one gun in the apartment. He said he didn't know what types of guns they were or what kind of gun was used in the shooting. Authorities also did not know who the guns belonged to. Halifax said police had not been called to the residence before.

Des Moines police see a couple of accidental shootings a year, but they are not typically fatal, Halifax said. The most recent fatal shooting involving a minor was in October 2012, when Dontavius Sharkey, 16, accidentally shot friend Corey Hamilton Jr., 16, in the head.

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Or further proof that the Second Amendment is about the militia: not private arms.

In the Virginia Constitutional Ratification debates (MONDAY, June 16, 1788.) Right after Patrick Henry makes a comment about:

the clause which gives Congress the power of
raising armies, and proceeded as follows: To me this appears a very alarming
power, when unlimited. They are not only to raise, but to support, armies; and
this support is to go to the utmost abilities of the United States. If Congress
shall say that the general welfare requires it, they may keep armies
continually on foot. There is no control on Congress in raising or stationing
them. They may billet them on the people at pleasure. This unlimited authority
is a most dangerous power: its principles are despotic. If it be unbounded, it
must lead to despotism; for the power of a people in a free government is
supposed to be paramount to the existing power.

We shall be told that, in England, the king, lords, and commons, have
this power; that armies can be raised by the prince alone, without the consent
of the people. How does this apply here? Is this government to place us in the
situation of the English? Should we suppose this government to resemble king,
lords, and commons, we of this state {411} should be like an English county. An
English county Cannot control the government. Virginia cannot control the
government of Congress any more than the county of Kent can control that of
England. Advert to the power thoroughly. One of our first complaints, under the
former government, was the quartering of troops upon us. This was one of the
principal reasons for dissolving the connection with Great Britain. Here we may
have troops in time of peace. They may be billeted in any manner — to
tyrannize, oppress, and crush us.

James Madison says:

"There never was a government without force. What is the meaning of government? An institution to make people do their duty. A government leaving it to a man to do his duty, or not, as he pleases, would be a new species of government, or rather no government at all."

Or in more detail:

He says that one ground of complaint, at the beginning of the
revolution, was, that a standing army was quartered upon us. This was not the
whole complaint. We complained because it was done without the local authority
of this country — without the consent of the people of America. As to the
exclusion of standing armies in the bill of rights of the states, we shall find
that though, in one or two of them, there is something like a prohibition, yet,
in most of them, it is only provided that no armies shall be kept without the
legislative authority; that is, without the consent of the community itself.
Where is the impropriety of saying that we shall have all army, if necessary?
Does not the notoriety of this constitute security? If inimical nations were to
fall upon us when defenceless, what would be the consequence? Would it be wise
to say, that we should have no defence? Give me leave to say, that the only
possible way to provide against standing armies is to make them unnecessary.
The way to do this is to organize and discipline our militia, so as to
render them capable of defending the country against external invasions and
internal insurrections. But it is urged that abuses may happen. How is it
possible to answer objections against the possibility of abuses? It must strike
every logical reasoner, that these cannot be entirely provided against. I
really thought that the objection in the militia was at an end. Was there ever
a constitution, in which if authority was vested, it must not have been
executed by force, if resisted? Was it not in the contemplation of this state,
when contemptuous proceedings were expected, to recur to something of this
kind? How is it possible to have a more proper resource than this? That the
laws of every country ought to be executed, cannot be denied. That force must
be used if necessary, cannot be denied. Can any government be established, that
will answer any put, pose whatever, unless force be provided for executing its
{414} laws? The Constitution does not say that a standing army shall be called
out to execute the laws. Is not this a more proper way? The militia ought to be
called forth to suppress smugglers. Will this be denied? The case actually
happened at Alexandria. There were a number of smugglers, who were too
formidable for the civil power to overcome. The military quelled the sailors,
who otherwise would have perpetrated their intentions. Should a number of
smugglers have a number of ships, the militia ought to be called forth to quell
them. We do not know but what there may be a combination of smugglers in
Virginia hereafter. We all know the use made of the Isle of Man. It was a
general depository of contraband goods. The Parliament found the evil so great,
as to render it necessary to wrest it out of the hands of its possessor.
The honorable gentleman says that it is a government of force. If he
means military force, the clause under consideration proves the contrary. There
never was a government without force. What is the meaning of government? An
institution to make people do their duty. A government leaving it to a man to
do his duty or not, as he pleases, would be a new species of government, or
rather no government at all. The ingenuity of the gentleman is remarkable in
introducing the riot act of Great Britain. That act has no connection, or
analogy, to any regulation of the militia; nor is there any thing in the
Constitution to warrant the general government to make such an act. It never
was a complaint, in Great Britain, that the militia could be called forth. If
riots should happen, the militia are proper to quell it, to prevent a resort to
another mode. As to the infliction of ignominious punishments, we have no
ground of alarm, if we consider the circumstances of the people at large. There
will be no punishments so ignominious as have been inflicted already. The
militia law of every state to the north of Maryland is less rigorous than the
particular law of this state. If a change be necessary to be made by the
general government, it will be in our favor. I think that the people of those
states would not agree to be subjected to a more harsh punishment than their
own militia laws inflict. An observation fell from a gentleman, on the same
side with myself, which deserves to be attended to. If we be dissatisfied with
the national government, if we should choose to renounce {415} it, this is an
additional safeguard to our defence. I conceive that we are peculiarly
interested in giving the general government as extensive means as possible to
protect us. If there be a particular discrimination between places in America,
the Southern States are, from their situation and circumstances, most
interested in giving the national government the power of protecting its
members.

My point is the usual one I make that if one actually goes to the effort of reading the primary sources, they will find that the Second Amendment has been taken completely out of context. There is far more evidence out there that the issue is civilian control of the military, rather than private ownership of firearms.

And the proposition that the Second Amendment in anyway sanctions rebellion is risable.

He discovered the gun in his car and rather than leave it in there with valet parking, he took the unloaded revolver to his room and locked it in the room safe. The valet had noticed the gun when it was in the car and told the police, who arrested Guy and charged him with unlawful weapon possession – a felony in NJ.

The prosecutor is refusing to allow Guy an option to avoid jail time, an option that is normally available in such cases.

Guy is really in a tough spot. If he takes the prosecutor’s current “deal,” Guy will spend one year in prison before being able to apply for parole. If denied, he will have to serve up to three years. If he rejects the idea of a “guilty” plea and is found guilty in a trial, he then faces a minimum jail sentence of between five and ten years.

Of course, if he wins the trial, he would be free. However, we are talking New Jersey.

This is why I avoid New Jersey, preferring not to leave America.

Here is a web site that provides details on Guy’s situation, as well as a petition to sign asking that Guy be given the non-felony option: www.wesupportourguy.com

First of all, does anyone believe he forgot he had the gun in the car until he pulled up to the casino? I don't. I figure he was like a lot of gun owners who think they can do whatever they want and get away with it. When caught, they forgot. It's pathetic. Describing him as a victim of his own forgetfulness and then a hero of gun security for bringing the gun into the hotel is transparent pro-gun bullshit.

Secondly, I couldn't find a thing about this case except on AmmoLand and that support site they linked to. I wouldn't be surprised if they invented the whole thing.

But I will say this, if it is exactly as presented here, jail time is excessive. That makes me wonder if there are extenuating circumstances, other than lying about having forgotten he had the gun, which naturally AmmoLand would have omitted.

To the surprise of the bill’s sponsor, Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed a bill Tuesday that that would have allowed concealed-carry permit holders to take their guns into government buildings.

House Bill 2339 would have allowed people with concealed-carry permits to bring weapons into government buildings unless security measures - including armed guards, metal detectors and gun lockers - are in place. The measure excluded public K-12 schools, community colleges and universities.

Also on Tuesday, Brewer vetoed a Republican-sponsored gun bill that would have imposed fines on cities, towns and their lawmakers if they enforce gun ordinances that are more strict than the state’s laws. That bill, House Bill 2517, was sponsored by Rep. Steve Smith of Maricopa.

Brewer, a Republican, has been supportive of other gun bills.

Last week, she signed into law House Bill 2483, which bans cities, counties and towns from restricting the shooting of guns on private property as long as the nearest occupied structure is more than a quarter-mile away.

We've been told emphatically there's no correlation between guns and murder rates. Lengthy, impossible-to-follow analyses have been offered to justify this incredible claim. But my question remains unanswered. How can there NOT be a correlation between gun availability and murder rates given that such a high percentage of overall murders are gun murders?

I figure the only possible answer would be that if no guns were available, the would-be murderers would ALL resort to one of the other weapons, knives, blunt objects, etc. And it's not like we've never heard that one either. But, seriously, does it make sense to you? Do you think that if the most efficient and successful killing tool were not available, the same number of murders would take place?

I don't think so.

Therefore, by diminishing gun availability to the most unfit people by the implementation of strict gun control and by removing guns from those who prove themselves to be irresponsible, fewer people would die - lives would be saved.

A suspect facing several charges was shot by U.S. Marshals during his own trial in a Salt Lake City courtroom Monday morning after he tried to attack a witness on the stand.

Vaiola Mataele Tenifa was on the witness stand describing the inner workings of the Tongan Crip Gang or TCG. Then, according to The Salt Lake Tribune, at about 9:25 a.m. Siale Maveni Angilau, the defendant who is also known as “C-Down,” violently lunged at Tenifa with a pen in his hand.

U.S. Marshals immediately took action and shot Angilau several times in the chest as a courtroom full of people, including the jury who was to decide Angilau’s fate, looked on. Witnesses recalled that even after Angilau fell to the floor, authorities continued to fire at him.

I don't care how bad a guy is, shooting him eight times, even after he's down, because he attacked with a pen is a bit much.

The lying gun-rights fanatics will often tell us Police Chiefs who espouse stronger gun control laws are just political hacks and yes-men who are giving lip-service to the positions of their superiors. The exact opposite is true. These are usually men who have risen up through the ranks of police departments, experience that makes their opinions especially valuable.

New York Police Department

McCarthy joined the New York City Police Department in 1981 at age 22. He rose through the ranks and became Deputy Commissioner of Operations in 2000. While there, he held a variety of positions around the city, was commander of several different precincts, and eventually was in charge of the NYPD's CompStat program.

I'm writing to show you this interesting letter that got me to pondering. The writer laments the recent opposition being voiced by both citizens and law enforcement leaders to the upcoming deadline of the New York SAFE Act along with the numerous vows to either not obey or not enforce the act.

The part that got me wondering was this,

"How startling to find that the cult of the firearm should monopolize the passions of this group over their responsibility to uphold and follow the law, the same as all others in society do — their wives and children, neighbors and friends and community leaders."

And I asked myself the question, am I in a cult? I found this definition to be the most germane,

"The word cult is not a term of abuse, as this paper tries to explain. It is nothing more than a shorthand expression for a particular set of practices that have been observed in a variety of dysfunctional organizations."

So then the question becomes as I'm wont to do, in trying to troubleshoot something, what has changed? Up until recently, everyone in both New York and Connecticut, where we are also seeing these actions, has been fairly content to obey the laws of the land and only voice their discontent without advocating disobedience of the law.

Both states have histories of having stricter than average gun laws, and fairly low crime rates. Both have fairly liberal Legislatures and Governors. Yet for some reason, after both states passed fairly similar legislation of a nature that supposedly enjoys the support of whatever percentage that constitutes a fair majority of the voters, one state shows a sizable number of citizens ignoring the law, and in New York, anecdotal evidence suggests that compliance may fall below 10% and a large number of law enforcement leaders have voiced public disapproval.

"The state refuses to say how many were registered, claiming it is confidential information protected by the law.

Gun-rights advocates estimate compliance will be less than 10 percent."

These supposed cults at present seem to currently be restricted to two states, however, to me it seems to raise a disturbing question. In these two states, the tipping point seems to be where these most recent legislative actions have restricted what to some are called "assault weapons" and others call "modern sporting rifles". And in these two cases, both managed to pass this legislation without perceiving the potential for the law being ignored by many.

This would suggest that each state has its own unique tipping point. For example, New Jersey has laws much more restrictive than either New York or Connecticut, yet, there is no word on any actions such as this.

Monday, April 21, 2014

Sometimes it’s the offhand remark that’s the most telling. Indeed, the way we Americans casually, often unthinkingly, incorporate gun metaphors into our everyday slang says a lot about how deeply embedded guns are in our culture and our politics, and how difficult it is to control or extract them. Consider this list, presented as bullet points — which are themselves so conventional, so central to the typography of mind-numbing PowerPoint presentations, that you can forget what their shape represents.

● Bite the bullet: Meaning to power through something unpleasant, the term comes from the practice of providing wounded soldiers a bullet to clench their teeth on while they underwent surgery without anesthetic. British writer Rudyard Kipling is thought to have been the first to use the expression figuratively. His 1891 novel “The Light That Failed”includes this line: “Bite on the bullet, old man, and don’t let them think you’re afraid.” These days, people are more likely to bite the bullet if they have to accept an unpleasant truth. And politicians are often urged to bite the bullet and compromise — suggesting that coming together to pass legislation is as painful as amputation while fully sentient.

This undated photo provided by Olson Communications shows a Colt .45 revolver believed to have been carried by Wyatt Earp during the O.K. Corral shootout in Tombstone, Ariz. The gun sold at an auction of of numerous items related to Earp and his family Thursday, April 17, 2014 for $225,000 in Scottsdale, Az.

One man was taken to Vanderbilt University Medical Center Friday after being shot in a hunting accident in the Cedar Hill area.

Shortly after 2 p.m., a man was accidentally shot by his son-in-law in the woods near 3991 Glen Raven Road while turkey hunting, according to Ryan Martin, Robertson County Sheriff's Office spokesperson.

The man was taken to Vanderbilt by Life Flight helicopter. The shooting has been ruled accidental, according to Martin.

You know what't gonna happen, right. That idiot son-in-law will have other incidents of gun misuse. He'll drop his gun, he'll forget there's a round in the chamber when cleaning the gun, he'll have a negligent discharge. Eventually he'll hurt himself or another - again. And chances are he won't be held accountable for his behavior even then.

That's what's wrong with the nonchalance with which we treat violations of the 4 Safety Rules. People who prove they're incapable of safely handling firearms should be stripped of the right to own them.

There’s still one man in America who doesn’t know that you can’t bring weapons onto airplanes.

A knucklehead from Pennsylvania found out the hard way that guns and air travel don’t mix when he walked up to a security checkpoint at JFK Wednesday and plunked a pistol down into the X-ray scanner tray as if it were his keys or wallet.